Search

BackgroundThis study utilizes interviews of clinical medical physicists to investigate self-reported shortcomings of the current weekly chart check workflow and opportunities for improvement.MethodsNineteen medical physicists were recruited for a 30-minute semi-structured interview, with a particular focus placed on image review and the use of automated tools for image review in weekly checks. Survey-type questions were used to gather quantitative information about chart check practices and importance placed on reducing chart check workloads versus increasing chart check effectiveness. Open-ended questions were used to probe respondents about their current weekly chart check workflow, opinions of the value of weekly chart checks and perceived shortcomings, and barriers and facilitators to the implementation of automated chart check tools. Thematic analysis was used to develop common themes across the interviews.ResultsPhysicists ranked highly the value of reducing the time spent on weekly chart checks (average 6.3 on a scale from 1 to 10), but placed more value on increasing the effectiveness of checks with an average of 9.2 on a 1-10 scale. Four major themes were identified: (1) weekly chart checks need to adapt to an electronic record-and-verify chart environment, (2) physicists could add value to patient care by analyzing images without duplicating the work done by physicians, (3) greater support for trending analysis is needed in weekly checks, and (4) automation has the potential to increase the value of physics checks.ConclusionThis study identified several key shortcomings of the current weekly chart check process from the perspective of the clinical medical physicist. Our results show strong support for automating components of the weekly check workflow in order to allow for more effective checks that emphasize follow-up, trending, failure modes and effects analysis, and allow time to be spent on other higher value tasks that improve patient safety.

Objective. In image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT), off-by-one vertebral body misalignments are rare but potentially catastrophic. In this study, a novel detection method for such misalignments in IGRT was investigated using densely-connected convolutional networks (DenseNets) for applications towards real-time error prevention and retrospective error auditing.Approach. A total of 4213 images acquired from 527 radiotherapy patients aligned with planar kV or MV radiographs were used to develop and test error-detection software modules. Digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) and setup images were retrieved and co-registered according to the clinically applied alignment contained in the DICOM REG files. A semi-automated algorithm was developed to simulate patient positioning errors on the anterior-posterior (AP) and lateral (LAT) images shifted by one vertebral body. A DenseNet architecture was designed to classify either AP images individually or AP and LAT image pairs. Receiver-operator characteristic curves (ROC) and areas under the curves (AUC) were computed to evaluate the classifiers on test subsets. Subsequently, the algorithm was applied to the entire dataset in order to retrospectively determine the absolute off-by-one vertebral body error rate for planar radiograph guided RT at our institution from 2011-2021.Main results. The AUCs for the kV models were 0.98 for unpaired AP and 0.99 for paired AP-LAT. The AUC for the MV AP model was 0.92. For a specificity of 95%, the paired kV model achieved a sensitivity of 99%. Application of the model to the entire dataset yielded a per-fraction off-by-one vertebral body error rate of 0.044% [0.0022%, 0.21%] for paired kV IGRT including one previously unreported error.Significance. Our error detection algorithm was successful in classifying vertebral body positioning errors with sufficient accuracy for retrospective quality control and real-time error prevention. The reported positioning error rate for planar radiograph IGRT is unique in being determined independently of an error reporting system.

PurposePresent knowledge of patient setup and alignment errors in image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) relies on voluntary reporting, which is thought to underestimate error frequencies. A manual retrospective patient-setup misalignment error search is infeasible owing to the bulk of cases to be reviewed. We applied a deep learning-based misalignment error detection algorithm (EDA) to perform a fully automated retrospective error search of clinical IGRT databases and determine an absolute gross patient misalignment error rate.Methods and materialsThe EDA was developed to analyze the registration between planning scans and pretreatment cone beam computed tomography scans, outputting a misalignment score ranging from 0 (most unlikely) to 1 (most likely). The algorithm was trained using simulated translational errors on a data set obtained from 680 patients treated at 2 radiation therapy clinics between 2017 and 2022. A receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to obtain target thresholds. DICOM Query and Retrieval software was integrated with the EDA to interact with the clinical database and fully automate data retrieval and analysis during a retrospective error search from 2016 to 2017 and from 2021 to 2022 for the 2 institutions, respectively. Registrations were flagged for human review using both a hard-thresholding method and a prediction trending analysis over each individual patient's treatment course. Flagged registrations were manually reviewed and categorized as errors (>1 cm misalignment at the target) or nonerrors.ResultsA total of 17,612 registrations were analyzed by the EDA, resulting in 7.7% flagged events. Three previously reported errors were successfully flagged by the EDA, and 4 previously unreported vertebral body misalignment errors were discovered during case reviews. False positive cases often displayed substantial image artifacts, patient rotation, and soft tissue anatomy changes.ConclusionsOur results validated the clinical utility of the EDA for bulk image reviews and highlighted the reliability and safety of IGRT, with an absolute gross patient misalignment error rate of 0.04% ± 0.02% per delivered fraction.

Technological advances in MRI-guided radiation therapy (MRIgRT) have improved real-time visualization of the prostate and its surrounding structures over CT-guided radiation therapy. Seminal studies have demonstrated safe dose escalation achieved through ultrahypofractionation with MRIgRT due to planning target volume (PTV) margin reduction and treatment gating. On-table adaptation with MRI-based technologies can also incorporate real-time changes in target shape and volume and can reduce high doses of radiation to sensitive surrounding structures that may move into the treatment field. Ongoing clinical trials seek to refine ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy treatments for prostate cancer using MRIgRT. Though these studies have the potential to demonstrate improved biochemical control and reduced side effects, limitations concerning patient treatment times and operational workflows may preclude wide adoption of this technology outside of centers of excellence. In this review, we discuss the advantages and limitations of MRIgRT for prostate cancer, as well as clinical trials testing the efficacy and toxicity of ultrafractionation in patients with localized or post-prostatectomy recurrent prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Automation and computer assistance can support quality assurance tasks in radiotherapy. Retrospective image review requires significant human resources, and automation of image review remains a noteworthy missing element in previous work. Here, we present initial findings from a proof-of-concept clinical implementation of an AI-assisted review of CBCT registrations used for patient setup. METHODS: An automated pipeline was developed and executed nightly, utilizing python scripts to interact with the clinical database through DICOM networking protocol and automate data retrieval and analysis. A previously developed artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm scored CBCT setup registrations based on misalignment likelihood, using a scale from 0 (most unlikely) through 1 (most likely). Over a 45-day period, 1357 pre-treatment CBCT registrations from 197 patients were retrieved and analyzed by the pipeline. Daily summary reports of the previous days registrations were produced. Initial action levels targeted 10% of cases to highlight for in-depth physics review. A validation subset of 100 cases was scored by three independent observers to characterize AI-model performance. RESULTS: Following an ROC analysis, a global threshold for model predictions of 0.87 was determined, with a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 82%. Inspecting the observer scores for the stratified validation dataset showed a statistically significant correlation between observer scores and model predictions. CONCLUSION: In this work, we describe the implementation of an automated AI-analysis pipeline for daily quantitative analysis of CBCT-guided patient setup registrations. The AI-model was validated against independent expert observers, and appropriate action levels were determined to minimize false positives without sacrificing sensitivity. Case studies demonstrate the potential benefits of such a pipeline to bolster quality and safety programs in radiotherapy. To the authors knowledge, there are no previous works performing AI-assisted assessment of pre-treatment CBCT-based patient alignment.

Background and purposeCurrently, there is no robust indicator within the Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) DICOM headers as to which anatomical region is present on the scan. This can be a predicament to CBCT-based algorithms trained on specific body regions, such as auto-segmentation and radiomics tools used in the radiotherapy workflow. We propose an anatomical region labeling (ARL) algorithm to classify CBCT scans into four distinct regions: head & neck, thoracic-abdominal, pelvis, and extremity.Materials and methodsAlgorithm training and testing was performed on 3,802 CBCT scans from 596 patients treated at our radiotherapy center. The ARL model, which consists of a convolutional neural network, makes use of a single CBCT coronal slice to output a probability of occurrence for each of the four classes. ARL was evaluated on the test dataset composed of 1,090 scans and compared to a support vector machine (SVM) model. ARL was also used to label CBCT treatment scans for 22 consecutive days as part of a proof-of-concept implementation. A validation study was performed on the first 100 unique patient scans to evaluate the functionality of the tool in the clinical setting.ResultsARL achieved an overall accuracy of 99.2% on the test dataset, outperforming the SVM (91.5% accuracy). Our validation study has shown strong agreement between the human annotations and ARL predictions, with accuracies of 99.0% for all four regions.ConclusionThe high classification accuracy demonstrated by ARL suggests that it may be employed as a pre-processing step for site-specific, CBCT-based radiotherapy tools.

BackgroundIn cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-guided radiotherapy, off-by-one vertebral-body misalignments are rare but serious errors that lead to wrong-site treatments.PurposeAn automatic error detection algorithm was developed that uses a three-branch convolutional neural network error detection model (EDM) to detect off-by-one vertebral-body misalignments using planning computed tomography (CT) images and setup CBCT images.MethodsAlgorithm training and test data consisted of planning CTs and CBCTs from 480 patients undergoing radiotherapy treatment in the thoracic and abdominal regions at two radiotherapy clinics. The clinically applied registration was used to derive true-negative (no error) data. The setup and planning images were then misaligned by one vertebral-body in both the superior and inferior directions, simulating the most likely misalignment scenarios. For each of the aligned and misaligned 3D image pairs, 2D slice pairs were automatically extracted in each anatomical plane about a point within the vertebral column. The three slice pairs obtained were then inputted to the EDM that returned a probability of vertebral misalignment. One model (EDM1 ) was trained solely on data from institution 1. EDM1 was further trained using a lower learning rate on a dataset from institution 2 to produce a fine-tuned model, EDM2 . Another model, EDM3 , was trained from scratch using a training dataset composed of data from both institutions. These three models were validated on a randomly selected and unseen dataset composed of images from both institutions, for a total of 303 image pairs. The model performances were quantified using a receiver operating characteristic analysis. Due to the rarity of vertebral-body misalignments in the clinic, a minimum threshold value yielding a specificity of at least 99% was selected. Using this threshold, the sensitivity was calculated for each model, on each institution's test set separately.ResultsWhen applied to the combined test set, EDM1 , EDM2 , and EDM3 resulted in an area under curve of 99.5%, 99.4%, and 99.5%, respectively. EDM1 achieved a sensitivity of 96% and 88% on Institution 1 and Institution 2 test set, respectively. EDM2 obtained a sensitivity of 95% on each institution's test set. EDM3 achieved a sensitivity of 95% and 88% on Institution 1 and Institution 2 test set, respectively.ConclusionThe proposed algorithm demonstrated accuracy in identifying off-by-one vertebral-body misalignments in CBCT-guided radiotherapy that was sufficiently high to allow for practical implementation. It was found that fine-tuning the model on a multi-facility dataset can further enhance the generalizability of the algorithm.

This article considers how technologies actively shape the topologies of UK higher education. Using the example of lecture capture systems, we examine the relationship between learning technologies and formations of space and time. Combining theories of sociomateriality and social topology, and concepts of assemblage and relationality, we expose the entanglement of interests that influence university spaces and times. Across 3 months coinciding with the onset of COVID-19 we collected over 500 tweets that discussed lecture capture within UK higher education, leading towards 2 central arguments. First, the topology of the lecture is fluid, and, even while being radically technologised, re-spatialised and disrupted, it persists as a lecture and a central pedagogical feature of university life. Second, lecture capture is a rich site of 'issuefication', and viewing learning technologies as dynamic issues enables a better understanding of how their meaning, function and influence are contingent on shifting and relational assemblages of human and non-human interests. Lecture capture can be pedagogical, commercial and political, thereby resisting deterministic framings of the relationship between technologies and the temporal and spatial arrangements of higher education.

PurposeAccurate and robust auto-segmentation of highly deformable organs (HDOs), for example, stomach or bowel, remains an outstanding problem due to these organs' frequent and large anatomical variations. Yet, time-consuming manual segmentation of these organs presents a particular challenge to time-limited modern radiotherapy techniques such as on-line adaptive radiotherapy and high-dose-rate brachytherapy. We propose a machine-assisted interpolation (MAI) that uses prior information in the form of sparse manual delineations to facilitate rapid, accurate segmentation of the stomach from low field magnetic resonance images (MRI) and the bowel from computed tomography (CT) images.MethodsStomach MR images from 116 patients undergoing 0.35T MRI-guided abdominal radiotherapy and bowel CT images from 120 patients undergoing high dose rate pelvic brachytherapy treatment were collected. For each patient volume, the manual delineation of the HDO was extracted from every 8th slice. These manually drawn contours were first interpolated to obtain an initial estimate of the HDO contour. A two-channel 64 × 64 pixel patch-based convolutional neural network (CNN) was trained to localize the position of the organ's boundary on each slice within a five-pixel wide road using the image and interpolated contour estimate. This boundary prediction was then input, in conjunction with the image, to an organ closing CNN which output the final organ segmentation. A Dense-UNet architecture was used for both networks. The MAI algorithm was separately trained for the stomach segmentation and the bowel segmentation. Algorithm performance was compared against linear interpolation (LI) alone and against fully automated segmentation (FAS) using a Dense-UNet trained on the same datasets. The Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and mean surface distance (MSD) metrics were used to compare the predictions from the three methods. Statistically significance was tested using Student's t test.ResultsFor the stomach segmentation, the mean DSC from MAI (0.91 ± 0.02) was 5.0% and 10.0% higher as compared to LI and FAS, respectively. The average MSD from MAI (0.77 ± 0.25 mm) was 0.54 and 3.19 mm lower compared to the two other methods. Only 7% of MAI stomach predictions resulted in a DSC

BackgroundStereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is becoming increasingly used in treating localized prostate cancer (PCa), with evidence showing similar toxicity and efficacy profiles when compared with longer courses of definitive radiation. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided radiotherapy has multiple potential advantages over standard computed tomography (CT)-guided radiotherapy, including enhanced prostate visualization (abrogating the need for fiducials and MRI fusion), enhanced identification of the urethra, the ability to track the prostate in real-time, and the capacity to perform online adaptive planning. However, it is unknown whether these potential advantages translate into improved outcomes. This phase III randomized superiority trial is designed to prospectively evaluate whether toxicity is lower after MRI-guided versus CT-guided SBRT.MethodsThree hundred men with localized PCa will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to SBRT using CT or MRI guidance. Randomization will be stratified by baseline International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) (≤15 or > 15) and prostate gland volume (≤50 cc or > 50 cc). Five fractions of 8 Gy will be delivered to the prostate over the course of fourteen days, with or without hormonal therapy and elective nodal radiotherapy (to a dose of 5 Gy per fraction) as per the investigator's discretion. The primary endpoint is the incidence of physician-reported acute grade ≥ 2 genitourinary (GU) toxicity (during the first 90 days after SBRT), as assessed by the CTCAE version 4.03 scale. Secondary clinical endpoints include incidence of acute grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, 5-year cumulative incidences of physician-reported late grade ≥ 2 GU and GI toxicity, temporal changes in patient-reported quality of life (QOL) outcomes, 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival and the proportion of fractions of MRI-guided SBRT in which online adaptive radiotherapy is used.DiscussionThe MIRAGE trial is the first randomized trial comparing MRI-guided with standard CT-guided SBRT for localized PCa. The primary hypothesis is that MRI-guided SBRT will lead to an improvement in the cumulative incidence of acute grade ≥ 2 GU toxicity when compared to CT-guided SBRT. The pragmatic superiority design focused on an acute toxicity endpoint will allow an early comparison of the two technologies.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04384770. Date of registration: May 12, 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04384770 PROTOCOL VERSION: Version 2.1, Aug 28, 2020.

Background and purposeStereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has become a standard-of-care option for localized prostate cancer. While prostate SBRT has traditionally been delivered using computed-tomography-guided radiation therapy (CTgRT), MR-imaging-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) is now available. MRgRT offers real-time soft-tissue visualization and ease of adaptive planning, obviating the need for fiducial markers, and potentially allowing for smaller planning target volume (PTV) margins. Although prior studies have focused on evaluating the cost-effectiveness of MRgRT vs CTgRT from a payor perspective, the difference in provider costs to deliver such treatments remains unknown. This study thus used time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to determine the difference in provider resources consumed by delivering prostate SBRT via MRgRT vs CTgRT.MethodsData was collected from a single academic institution where prostate SBRT is routinely performed using both CTgRT and MRgRT. Five-fraction SBRT (40 Gy total dose) was assumed to be delivered through volumetric-modulated arc therapy for CTgRT patients, and through step-and-shoot, fixed-gantry intensity-modulated radiation therapy for MRgRT patients. Process maps were constructed for each portion of the radiation delivery process via interviews/surveys with departmental personnel and by measuring CTgRT and MRgRT treatment times. Prior to simulation, only CTgRT patients underwent placement of three gold fiducial markers. Personnel capacity cost rates were calculated by dividing total personnel costs by the annual minutes worked by a given personnel. Equipment costs included both an annualized purchase price and annual maintenance costs. Ultimately, the total costs of care encompassing personnel, space/equipment, and materials were aggregated across the entire chain of care for both CTgRT and MRgRT patients in a base case.ResultsDirect costs associated with delivering a 5-fraction course of prostate SBRT were $1,497 higher with MRgRT than with CTgRT - comprised of personnel costs ($210 higher with MRgRT), space/equipment ($1,542 higher with MRgRT), and materials ($255 higher with CTgRT). Only CTgRT patients underwent fiducial placement, which accounted for $591. MRgRT patients were assumed to undergo both CT simulation (for electron density calculation) and MRI simulation, with the former accounting for $168. Mean time spent by patients in the treatment vault per fraction was 20 minutes (range 15-26 minutes) for CTgRT, and 31 minutes (range 30-34 minutes) for MRgRT. Patient time spent during fiducial placement (CTgRT only) was 60 minutes. Modifying the number of fractions treated would result in the cost difference of $1,497 (5 fractions) changing to $441 (1 fraction) or to $2,025 (7 fractions).ConclusionThis study provides an approximate comparison of the direct resources required for a radiation oncology provider to deliver prostate SBRT with CTgRT vs MRgRT. We await findings from the currently accruing phase III MIRAGE trial, which is comparing these modalities, and will subsequently measure acute and late genitourinary/gastrointestinal (GU/GI) toxicities, temporal change in quality-of-life outcomes, and 5-year biochemical, recurrence-free survival. Results from studies comparing the efficacy and safety of MRgRT vs CTgRT will ultimately allow us to put this cost difference into context.

PurposeStereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) delivers ablative doses with excellent local control. However, implementing SBRT for abdominal and pelvic tumors has been limited by the risk for treatment-related gastrointestinal toxicity. MRI-guided radiotherapy may ameliorate these risks and increase the therapeutic ratio. We report the clinical outcomes of stereotactic MRI-guided adaptive radiotherapy (SMART) for primary and metastatic tumors in the abdomen and pelvis.MethodsFrom November 2014 to August 2017, the first 106 consecutive patients with 121 tumors in the abdomen and pelvis were treated with SMART at a single institution. Of the cohort, 41.5%, 15.1%, and 43.4% had primary, locally recurrent, and oligometastatic tumors, respectively. SMART was delivered using a tri-cobalt-60 gantry with on-board 0.35 Tesla MRI with respiratory breath-hold and daily adaptive re-planning when anatomically necessary. A median of 40Gy in five fractions was prescribed. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.4.03 was used to score treatment-related toxicities. Local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method.ResultsOf the 510 treatments, seventy-one (13.9%) were adapted. Fatigue, nausea, and pain were the most common acute toxicities. 0.9 and 0% of patients experienced acute grade three and four toxicities, respectively. 5.2 and 2.1% of patients experienced late grade three and four toxicities, respectively. After a median follow-up of 20.4 months, the 2-year LC rate was 74% on a per-lesion basis. Two-year LC was 96% for lesions that were treated with BED10 ≥100 versus 69% for BED10

PurposeTo estimate the overall spatial distortion on clinical patient images for a 0.35 T MR-guided radiotherapy system.MethodsTen patients with head-and-neck cancer underwent CT and MR simulations with identical immobilization. The MR images underwent the standard systematic distortion correction post-processing. The images were rigidly registered and landmark-based analysis was performed by an anatomical expert. Distortion was quantified using Euclidean distance between each landmark pair and tagged by tissue interface: bone-tissue, soft tissue, or air-tissue. For baseline comparisons, an anthropomorphic phantom was imaged and analyzed.ResultsThe average spatial discrepancy between CT and MR landmarks was 1.15 ± 1.14 mm for the phantom and 1.46 ± 1.78 mm for patients. The error histogram peaked at 0-1 mm. 66% of the discrepancies were

PurposeStereotactic magnetic resonance image-guided adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) is an emerging technique that shows promise in the treatment of pancreatic cancer and other abdominopelvic malignancies. However, it is unknown whether the time-limited nature of on-table adaptive planning may result in dosimetrically suboptimal plans. The purpose of this study was to quantitatively address that question through systemic retrospective replanning of treated on-table adaptive pancreatic cancer cases.Methods and materialsOf 74 consecutive adapted fractions, 30 were retrospectively replanned based on deficiencies in planning target volume (PTV) and gross tumor volume (GTV) coverage or doses to organs-at-risk (OARs) that exceeded ideal constraints. Retrospective plans were created by adjusting dose-volume objectives in an iterative fashion until deemed optimized. The goal of replanning was to improve PTV/GTV coverage while keeping the dose to gastrointestinal OARs the same or lower or to reduce OAR doses while keeping PTV coverage the same or higher. The global maximum dose was required to be maintained within 2% of that of the treated adaptive plan to eliminate it as a confounding factor. A threshold of 5% improvement in PTV coverage or 5% decrease in OAR dose was used to define a clinically significant improvement.ResultsOf the 30 replans, 7 obtained at least 5% PTV coverage improvement. The average increase in PTV coverage for these plans was 11%. No plans were clinically significantly improved in terms of OAR sparing. Changes in beam-on time did not show any correlation. Statistical analysis via a linear mixed-effects model with a nested random effect suggested that both GTV and PTV coverage were improved over SMART process plans by 0.91 cc (P = .02) and 2.03 cc (P < .001), respectively.ConclusionsDosimetric plan quality of at least 10% of SMART fractions may be improved through more extensive replanning than is currently performed on-table. Further work is needed to develop an automated replanning workflow to streamline the in-depth replanning process to better fit into an on-table adaptive workflow.